Cancel Investigation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful constraint that the investigation must be running, but it does not explain effects on investigation data, reversibility, or required permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter cancellation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety and idempotency profile, so the description need not explain return values. For a simple cancel operation, the description is nearly complete, though it could mention the running-state prerequisite more explicitly and what cancellation does to the investigation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single investigation_id parameter is documented as a UUID in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: cancel an investigation. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as start_investigation, get_investigation, or list_investigations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies the tool applies to a running investigation, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer that it should not be used for completed investigations or that get_investigation is for inspection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.